Formal Statement Read to Secretary Richard Hall, Maryland State Department of Planning

I read the following statement today during a formal meeting between the Calvert County Board of County Commissioners to the Maryland State Department for Planning Secretary Richard Hall:

Mr. Secretary, the Tier Map requirements from the recently passed Septic Law, the planned Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (Cap and Trade), and The Watershed Implementation Plan’s prominent use of Best Available Technology for Septic tanks (meaning nitrogen removing septic systems) causes much heartburn -- even Prilosec does not help.


You recall selling your PlanMaryland initiative as being simply a benign means for the various state-level departments to coordinate? More like the opposite of benign; we are experiencing state control over how rural land owners develop, operate, and use their private real property.

PlanMaryland, Septic Law requiring various Tier categories, Watershed Implementation Plans (which for Calvert County brings along with it a 1.3 Billion dollar bill), upcoming Cap and Trade legislation all tie together under the philosophical term “sustainable development”.

This state imposed philosophy diminishes property rights of our citizens. I reject this intrusive concept of state-dictated land use and related behavior modifications.

For this “Septic Law”, how can we not object to these state efforts considering the county must request an exemption from the Maryland State Department of Planning for the Tier IV restrictions on major subdivisions whereas your department will then determine conformance of the county tier boundaries with state statutory guidelines; whereas your department will then determine if the Area as a whole might meet the 1 lot or fewer per 20 acres threshold to qualify for the exemption; whereas your department makes a final determination?

More than an implied threat if we do not adhere to this Septic Tier categorization by the end of this calendar year your department will prevent the start of any new major residential subdivision. Sure does sound like your department is intruding into decisions on our local land use.

Local officials throughout Maryland who swore an oath to defend the principles of the U. S. Constitution represent the last line of defense for our citizens against this intrusion.

While I reject the intrusion of state central planners into our local land use decisions, we should also express disagreement with the state following lock-step in its adherence to the term “sustainable community” which we all know is an offspring of the term “sustainable development,” as coined by the World Commission on Environment and Development back in 1987, and refined in UN One World Government vision called Agenda 21.

Our own planning documentation such as the county Comprehensive Master Plan and the various Town Center Master Plans are relevant. They are produced by working with various community groups and individuals. I support these planning documents as they reflect the views of the citizens, although, we need to ensure we detach whatever parts are merely the adoption of Agenda 21.

Forcing local authorities to alter their own comprehensive plans is abhorrent to local governing and yet is consistent with Agenda 21 which goes far beyond building and fire safety codes. Those Agenda 21 planning efforts include: residential, property maintenance, energy conservation, wild land interface, and other behavior modification codes.

A sustainable community is a community around which the all mighty and powerful OZ,… I mean the government, draws an Urban Boundary Zone and forbids delivering city services outside the zone, prohibits new construction outside the zone, and requires residents within the zone to live in housing that meets the size and cultural integration standards set forth in law by state central planners.

Sustainable communities are high-density communities where automobiles are discouraged, and bikeways and walkways are the alternative to public transportation. The state is forcing this philosophy upon the rural areas of Maryland. No wonder there is validity to the term “War on Rural Maryland.”

The Governor clearly takes an elitist approach requiring everyone to live in small homes on crowded lots and walking to work; if employment even exists these days. That philosophy is clearly political. It’s about control, and not based upon science of cleaning the bay. It represents the most extremist views supporting high density areas. Those of us who want to be free from central planning intrusion tend to live in the rural areas.

Calvert County officials are not the only ones in Maryland who are concerned. Like the Cecil County Commissioners who voted unanimously to tell the State “NO”, I will not go quietly. I defend the property rights of our citizens and oppose the State unlawfully taking property rights of farmers’ and other rural citizens’ without just compensation.

The mandated revisions to county master plans and initiation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative are reminiscent of those Central Planners in Moscow and Beijing. I guess next there will be created a series of “Five Year Plans.”

The state focuses upon septic tanks in the rural areas whereas septic contribution of nitrogen and solids into the Chesapeake Bay if at all is minimal. Central planners completely ignore the vast areas of impervious surfaces in large urban areas such as Baltimore City and ignore the large amount of effluent that gets dumped into the water streams by large waste water treatment centers. Anybody measure the water quality of the Inner Harbor or Anacostia River lately?

State central planners ignore the overwhelming amount of debris that enters the bay from the Conowingo Dam that spans Cecil and Harford county borders on the Susquehanna River. That debris is readily present as far south as the Potomac River (well south of us in Calvert County). I personally observed some of that debris last year when September 9, 2011, 44 flood gates were opened due to the impact of the remnants of Tropical Storm Lee.

As far back as 1998, the US Geological Service reported that the Conowingo Dam, the Holtwood and Safe Harbor Dams further upstream may reach capacity before the year 2020 (just 8 years from now); no longer able to function to reduce the nutrient and sediment load hitting the bay… and the state has done what?

Most recently, the U.S. Geological Survey Report 2012-5185 published August 30, 2012, clearly established inadequacy of the Science used as a base for Watershed Implementation Plans and thus all the other land grabbing legislation, Best Available Technology, etc.

Environmental zealots are moving full steam ahead at implementing unnecessarily harsh and ineffective regulations under the guise of the necessity to comply with Federal regulations when in fact, Maryland is interpreting and implementing the Federal regulations unlike any other State.

The state requiring that local governments spend funds we do not have (in our case $1.3 Billion) to remove a fraction of a percent of nitrogen and solids is a waste of tax payer money.

It defies logic to force us to focus upon the minuscule amount of nitrogen present in our septic tanks while too little is done in areas further north of us that have far greater impact upon the quality of the Chesapeake Bay. It defies logic that central planners continually pick on the farmers and residents in this rural county.

Thoughts About the Weather

This whole “Global Cooling”, no wait, “Global Warming”, no wait, “Climate Change”, err make that “Man-Made Climate Change”; whatever simply makes no sense to me.


First of all, this topic is very much a religion and having the government attempt to establish it in this country violates the U.S. Constitution as the first Amendment states among other things, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…”

Sometime, I’ll go into some comparison of religions that shows the above whatever you want to call it is a religion. But for now, just consider the logical argument.

What we Know, What we Don’t Know

We know the sun provides warmth to our planet. We also have warmth from the hot core of the planet.

We know the planet was once uninhabitable as a molten fireball containing methane gas and other nasty environmental conditions. So, now that the earth evolved its air to mostly nitrogen and some oxygen, I guess one could say, yes there is Climate Change; a very natural evolving process. This was nicely done my Lord, as the earth evolved to a point that the planet sustains life; from once where life was impossible. What an intelligent design.

The heat that remains from creation mostly in the form of a molten core occasionally escapes the subsurface through various naturally occurring cracks either on the land surface or under the sea. That heat tends to warm to some degree the surrounding water or air, doesn’t it?

We know the planet has a surface with the most prominent feature being water; and that water is a wonderful insulator. It takes much energy to warm and cool water. That it holds a given temperature more so than the rocky surface is testament that it is a very stable element to measure. It also is noted as a solid (ice), liquid (water), and gas (air). Its temperature various around the world, but tends to stay rather stable from a local perspective.

The sun has sun spot activity about every 11 years which tracks well with the observed over time cyclic warming and cooling of air temperatures around the planet.

At any time, the air temperature (very volatile) displays extremes noted at the surface ranging from as high of around 120 degrees to a low of about minus 50 degrees. Its other extremes are vertical. The higher one goes in the atmosphere, the colder it gets.

The air temperature is also affected by the tilt angle of the earth which as it revolves around the sun forms the basis for our observation of the various seasons. The earth spins at about 1,000 miles per hour at the equator. Air travelling over large bodies of water either cools, or warms pending the temperature of the water at that locale. By the way, wind is caused by the difference in temperatures. That accounts for that violent wind on a hot summer day just before a cold front arrives with a storm.

If that isn’t enough, sure there are other sources of heat or cooling caused by other natural or man-made activity. Fires create heat by burning stored energy. It basically transforms existing energy from one state to another (no, not the states of the US), but rather to/from solid, liquid, gas. You know, such a process is the first genuine “energy exchange”.

We also know the sun dances around the equator during the course of a year traveling as far north as the Topic of Cancer and as far south as the Topic of Capricorn. Its cyclic activity is not caused just by the sun’s rays (we call that day time) and lack of sun’s rays (night time), but the angle of those rays (warmer when the slant range is shorter such as near the equator). No wonder the air temperature is so volatile.

So, given that brief short description of some of what we know, with room left to describe what we don’t know; I wonder what the fuss is all about with man-made global whatever we’re going to call it today/next.

I would think that if I were really concerned about global warming or cooling, I’d be apt to measure more so those more stable conditions such as the molten core and water. Land surface temperature seems to be too affected by the molten core, and interaction among water, air, and sun. I’d pay no attention to those air temperatures since they appear to be the most volatile of all.

Worrying about Global Whatever Temperature Name we call it reminds me predicting the future stock market by making daily measurements of only the most volatile stocks without giving sufficient consideration to those more stable long term investments. I think they might call such speculation as “fool’s gold”

Buy Local -- You Too

As we Commissioners often remind our citizens to “buy local”, the same philosophy should be encouraged by our county’s purchasing efforts.

Unfortunately, as a board, we do not use that same “by local” thought when we award contracts. I believe we should give local consideration, and I have often raised that subject as an issue. More than once, I have opposed awarding a particular contract to an out of county vendor over a local vendor. The following explains why.

Our county code (public law) which can be found at: http://ecode360.com/CA1802 is our guide which I believe we commissioners need to adhere to all of its requirements, not just a part. We too often focus upon awarding competitive bidding contracts based upon one part of that code.

Extracted from § 6-101. Competitive bidding. [1985, ch. 715, § 2; 1989, ch. 69]

(a); we seem to focus solely upon one part, namely: “..the contract shall be awarded at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Commissioners or by the official authorized to contract for the county to the lowest responsible bidder meeting Specifications...”

However, it’s that “lowest responsible bidder” portion that often puts us in a situation where for as little as a difference of $1.00, a contract may be awarded outside the county over a Calvert County company who employs Calvert citizens. Not only does that seem intuitively wrong and illogical, it also reflects that we are not doing our due diligence.

Looking elsewhere within that same part of the county code, paragraph (c) states, “(c) In determining the “lowest responsible bidder,” in addition to considering price, the Commissioners or the official authorized to contract for the county shall consider: (1) The ability, capacity, and skill of the bidder to perform the contract or provide the

service …and (7) Any other information that may have a bearing on the decision to award the contract.

Note, (7) for which we as commissioners “shall consider” as in we must; we are required to consider “other information”. To simply accept the recommendation by the staff based solely upon “lowest responsible bidder” indicates we are not awarding contracts as guided by our own law.

While I am not suggesting that “other information” such as “Local Preference” be established which some other counties do employ, I am confident that some criteria could be created (i.e., if the vendor a local county business, number of county citizens it employs, etc.) which as “other information” could at a minimum ensure that local vendors are given “Local Consideration”.

This can be implemented, and should have, could have been done so without changing the law.

Camp COPS

Recently, a conversation with a few Maryland State Police officers reminded me of the saying, “It’s a small world”. Our conversation focused upon an upcoming summer camp for kids these troopers call “Camp COPS”, being held at King’s Landing Park July 16 – 20, 2012.

In an actual training camp that simulates the same courses state troopers are required to complete before they serve the public, youth experience a brief study of the physical training, self discipline and courtesy each trooper undertakes in one week.

Each camper is instructed by troopers who know the value of reinforcing good choices and giving direction to those who choose the right path to follow.

The concept for this camp is to instill in the minds of youth that the police are truly interested in their well being and not interested in arresting them. The police realize that the greatest natural resource is the youth, for the youth of today are the leaders of tomorrow. They are doing their part to close any gaps between young people and the police by effectively putting to use the Police-Community Relations aspect of preventing problems before they develop.

The camp is an opportunity to provide youth with a positive attitude toward the law enforcement profession, while building self-confidence, self-esteem, self-discipline, self-respect and respect for others.

The efforts of many dedicated volunteers and state and local law enforcement personnel, these and other similar programs continue to be a positive experience for all involved.

At the conclusion of this rewarding program, each camper participates in a graduation ceremony. These camps have even sparked the interest in following the career choice of those law enforcement personnel who prove to be a positive influence in their life.

So, you wonder how the conversation about Camp COPS made for the assertion that, “It’s a small world”?

Today’s children have their own challenges, debatable if on par with the social unrest, violence and disrespect for law enforcement that was prominent during my youth, the late 1960’s.

Facing challenges during those days, now Retired Trooper Albert R. Vish, Community Relations Officer of the Pennsylvania State Police, along with Troopers John Prandy (deceased) and Robert Price (retired), conceived of an opportunity called Camp Cadet, first held in 1970, and then turned their vision into reality for youth to participate in a program that removed false images of law enforcement.

The creation of Camp Cadet became a model for other states with the Maryland State Police Barracks U, Prince Frederick, Calvert County, adopting the Camp Cadet model creating in 1998, Camp COPS.

Growing up in Pennsylvania, I was a year too old to attend the first Camp Cadet, but the following year and for several years served as a camp counselor and staff officer. Imagine my surprise when I learned that camp for which I devoted much time and energy in the 1970’s later became the model for our own Camp COPS here in Calvert County.

I predict the graduating ceremony for Camp COPS this year will be unique and memorable.

FY13 Budget -- We Can Do Better

I oppose this budget. My preference is otherwise. Staff worked long hours making a balanced budget. An actual decrease of $7 million from last year, it includes various user fee increases, but no tax rate increases. The workforce does not expand, and unfortunately for county employees salaries remain flat. I suspect sufficient votes exist for adoption.

Last year’s budget was largely from the previously elected board as 3 newly elected commissioners’ involvement was towards the tail-end. After our initial few months of orientation, we made slight adjustments. This budget is the first completely built by this board.

In the 2010 campaign when I visited over 3200 homes, voters told me they wanted new faces, new blood, new personalities; and new ideas. Sadly, this budget lacks new ideas.

Some may say our efforts are not perfect; improvements could be made; and that we could always do better. Citizens expect that we actually make improvements rather than selecting the status quo.

Some claim our budget is testimony to the county bond ratings; distinguish budget presentation awards, and awards for accounting.

Bond ratings are essentially credit scores indicating our ability and willingness to pay our debts more so than reflecting the quality of the budget.

Presentation awards reflect a document that serves as an operations guide, financial plan, and communications device. This award is less so about the quality of the budget.

Accounting awards indicate we properly document expenditures consistent with the budget. It demonstrates that funds are “accounted for”, not the quality of the budget.

These awards are welcomed, earned, noteworthy, and clearly deserving for our staff; yet even in total do not mean we have the proper budget.

FY13 budget had too little support for new ideas. A continued depressed economy, warning signals, and recklessness in Annapolis did not stop our adherence to the past.

My opposition is more than simply opposing the process. I am not saying “Do it my way, or the highway”, nor “If you don’t play the game the way I want to; I’m taking my toys home.”

Taking a previous year’s budget and aligning expenses to projected income prevents needed detailed examination by elected officials. This approach prevents the level of transparency our citizens deserve.

I disagree that we have a “conservative budget.” I do understand we error on the side of the tax payer when making estimates which is consistent with conservative budgeting practices as described in bond rating agency reports.

A conservative budget is more than making conservative estimates. It starts with the basics by base-lining truly needed activities and functions. Conservative budgets ensure that only required activities and functions are funded. I support building a budget from the basics.

We should articulate genuine guidance at the beginning of the build. Instead, departments do “salami-slicing” to reach the budget bottom line (now for a third year in a row).

The current process lacks detailed prioritizations. We should have greater front-end insight to more objectively determine what specific items should, or not, be funded.

We should seek ways of reducing duplicative costs to include the Sheriff’s Office and Board of Education. We should focus on cost savings for the tax payer by targeting similar functions and services such as procurement, fleet maintenance, and IT services. A transportation expert indicated 25% savings in maintenance if we take a different approach.

Citizens ask why educators request more money while declining student enrollment since 2006, continues downward through 2016. Hiring more deputies and staff over the past years means less money for salary increases.

One citizen’s look at the school budget questions less than explicit expenditures of over half-million dollars, and if $6.6 million is really appropriate for custodial support.

I oppose a budget where I cannot readily see rationale explaining 1. Why we need the number of requested employees, 2. Why we need the identified amount of income, and 3. Why we need the identified resources such as buildings and equipment.

I am not critical of past budgets. During economic expansion, the process created reserves that assisted during economic contraction. Given the prolonged stagnant economy, is it not appropriate to consider relooking our build process?

For the newer commissioners, are we truly comfortable with this budget; have a firm handle on all the items it contains, recognize any impact we made? Can we honestly respond to our constituents and defend this budget to the level of detail they may ask? I cannot.

We need a different process; one with goals of reducing tax rates, identifying and eliminating duplication, ensuring greater transparency for the citizens, and our increased interaction throughout the entire build.

Therefore, I cannot in good conscience vote in favor of the FY13 budget; and I end with this one question for our citizens. Are you comfortable with more of the same, or desire improvements? Thank you for listening to my concerns and suggestions.

Proposed Budget Framework

INTRODUCTION

Three items converged recently which reinforces my determination to better explain an idea for an alternative approach to our budget building methodology.

A. I believe we are currently having challenges producing a true "balanced budget" as though we have a mathematical equation that included something entirely impossible to solve such as trying to divide by zero.

After 3 consecutive years of ‘salami slicing’ (5%, 5%, and 3%) budgets, any reserves that might present themselves (to save the day) may no longer exist. There may be no more proverbial rabbits to pull out of the hat.

As if to give credence to one of Einstein’s sayings about repeatedly doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results, trying to come up with a Balanced Budget may have many wondering about the sanity of it all.

B. One Commissioner this week seemed to identify a condition that if existing, would prompt seeking an alternative means to build a budget. It appears that Queens Anne County may be having such financial constraints, they may need to have lay-offs (an underlining indicator that would encourage that Commissioner to seek an alternative approach).

It would seem that rather than waiting to face an impending lay-off scenario, we collectively use our own foresight to see that we need to explore taking a different approach. Because the U.S. economy is not like this county has experienced by the present day generation, an open mind to taking a different approach would seem prudent.

Calvert County has led the State of Maryland on many efforts. Land use planning, educational excellence, and our overall Quality of Life to mention just a few are reasons to be proud. Surely, we cannot be afraid to lead into a new direction to stay ahead of potential financial crises, and lead a new course, direction, and future.

C. The State of Maryland is definitely passing on the teachers’ pensions as well as strict new Maintenance of Effort burdens to the counties. Though final dollar figures are not 100% determined, even a best case scenario where the state provides some offsets is likely to be short-lived (one year). How our board addresses this challenge, while pinched from other sides such as the teachers lobbying for more funding for their salaries, wants and desires of public safety officials, as well as the general operation of the county government begs for us to take a different approach.


STATUS QUO

There is much positive to say about the previous approaches to the budget build for this county. Recognizing that anyone who identifies a need for change has the burden of making the case for change, I want to assure everyone that I do not advocate simply throwing out all that is currently done. Current best practices would be incorporated into any new method we construct to build the budget. One bottom line, however, we must recognize the reality that given the financial situation of the U.S. economy, the status quo (the way we’ve always done it) can no longer continue. Our citizens deserve better, and this board is uniquely capable of providing better.

WHAT THIS DISCUSSION IS NOT

This discussion is not about how to bring the FY13 (current build) into balance in time for the beginning of the fiscal year that starts 1 July 2012. Nor is this discussion about the FY14 Budget Build whose build cycle starts 1 July 2012.

WHAT THIS DISCUSSION IS

This discussion is focused upon the budget build cycle that begins 1 July 2013, for the FY15 budget.

This discussion is a framework. Much like a carpenter constructs the framework of a building, this framework outlines the major components and suggests a schedule for completing (putting substance on the framework) the budget. Over the past year, I’ve made mention of various approaches, tools, and concepts. While some of these may sound new, I assure you they are proven to work and have demonstrated success in other places. This framework works for contracts that are relatively small ($25 million), national, state, and local governments, as well as fortune 500 companies.


FRAMEWORK

This framework uses an iterative building process that begins with the basics. Like a step ladder, it takes two rails that connect the various steps. One rail represents Time. The other is a Feedback Loop. Each step is described. Each step includes a feedback loop to permit any needed adjustments as one proceeds along the steps. During this build process, several by-products are inherently produced. They emerge naturally and become useful elsewhere.

Since the resulting Budget, Organization Structure, and Customer/Citizen Interaction will all emerge from the common Basics build approach, we will gain cost efficiencies, commonality of understanding, and convenience for the citizens (apologies for the fuzzy image).

There are more by-products. These are the Big 3.

HOW TO START

Each of the following steps follows a progression that is logical, understandable, and overtime predictable. After the ‘first pass’ (through the first fiscal year), the by-products will serve as tools which easily can be tweaked over time without needing to completely re-invent and do over. The continuous feed-back loop allows us to quickly and easily make adjustments that are priority driven and represent a continuous process improvement. The following times are estimates constrained by the number of months to implement this framework to begin planning for the start of the FY15 Budget Build (1 July 2013).

STEP 1—CUSTOMER and CITZEN NEEDS

Everything begins with the Customer first. For purposes of discussion, I’ll differentiate the needs as being either external needs (citizens), or internal needs (customers). Not to get hung-up on words, while citizens can be customers and vice versa, we will find that while the county government serves the citizens (as external customers who have citizen needs), the county government also serves those who are employed by the government (internal customer needs). For example, Budget and Finance has activities that serve both external and internal customer needs (i.e., water/sewer bills – external and paychecks – internal).

In Step 1, we need to have the staff document all needs. Given we Commissioners interact with citizens routinely, we should be expected to a help identify those needs. All needs should be documented, categorized as appropriate (not limited to internal or external), crafted into discreet increments and prioritized. Hint about prioritization – All who have a need have as their highest priority their need.

Key words to consider when putting together the “Needs” listing include Requirements, Statute, Constraints, Demands, Inputs, Needs, Requests, Tasks, Orders, and Questions.

It is critical that within Step 1, a “relative prioritization” effort occur. Anticipate that departments will have their own prioritizations. Intra- and Inter- prioritizations needs to occur with adjustments made interactively.

“I betcha these are well known, but simply not yet documented in a repository”

Estimated time for Step 1 --- 3 weeks no more than 4

STEP 2 – SATISFYING THE NEEDS

Step 2 is where the various departments begin describing how they receive and address the needs presented to them. It is the reason they go to work every day. But, to break it down easily, we need to have the information captured in a manner that it can serve multiple purposes (Activities yield Processes which produce Functions and Services). These are key concepts and are presented below:

An activity is the basic unit, and when tied to other activities form a Process. Each Process can be characterized as a Function and a Service. I’ve attached a visual (sorry if the image is fuzzy, I don't know how yet to improve it. Can send you a clean copy if you ask).

During Step 2, we need to also associate the Activities, Processes, Functions and Services to the Needs identified within Step 1. Iterative changes to the earlier created Needs should be anticipated during this step. Most likely new and previously unknown needs will emerge. Several iterations within this step are likely as needs are prioritized and reprioritized.

Estimated time for Step 2 --- 6 weeks no more than 8

STEP 3 – LOGICAL GROUPINGS

Step 3 is where we take the gathered data and perform basis analysis to determine logical groupings. These groupings are formed around common functions and common services. Doing such can yield the creation of functional organizations, time-based organizations, process oriented organizations, or whatever is determined to be in the best interest of the entire organization.

This is the point where it becomes apparent that “Form Follows Function”. The form (organizational structure) is created around the understanding of the functions.

Step 3 includes de-conflicting duplicate functions and services as well as beginning the effort to identify personnel gaps and overlaps.

The beginnings of another by-product begins to take form here, as the organization is accumulating sufficient information to create a “Frequently Asked Question” feature for its web page as well as formation of responses that point the questioner to organizations, services, and tangible responses.

Estimated time for Step 3 --- 8 weeks no more than 12

STEP 4 – BASIS OF ESTIMATES

Step 4 begins the bridge from the “operational” to the “financial”. The primary task at hand during this step is to determine the resources required to perform the Services and Functions that are needed to satisfy the Needs. A Basis of Estimate is the documentation that requires the line manager to identify the types of skills needed, level of skills needed, and number of employees needed to successfully carry out the organization mission that was created/identified within Step 3.

Most critical during Step 4 is the dynamics of the Trade Space. This is the area where negotiation between the needs for resources and suppliers of resources occurs. Various guiding documentation is needed during this step to include Standard Operating Procedures (or validation they exist and are used), adherence to Standards (wide ranges of constraints that must be met or obstacles to overcome) is demonstrated, and Cost Realism is employed. This Trade Space appears to already occur to some degree with the current process (between the months of July – December).

The Basis of Estimates need close coordination with Personnel, Finance, and Supervisory Chain of Command. Following a successful Basis of Estimate for an organization, a primary question of “How do I know how many people are needed?” can be answered.

With knowledge of employee manning strength, estimates can become clearer for determining how much equipment and physical resources are needed. Following successful Basis of Estimates for an organization, a secondary question of “How do I know how much equipment and physical resources are needed?”

Finally, with the summation of the knowledge gained from the Basis of Estimates pertaining to Personnel costs, physical resource costs, and other costs, an overarching question of “How do I know how much money is needed by the county government?”

Estimate time for Step 4 – 5 months

This image is our current budget build process (in another posting, this image is actually clearer -- Go Figure):

It would seem that Steps 1 – 3 represents what’s new with the proposed change to the budget build whereas Step 4 may modulate slightly the current activities that occur with the commencement of the budget build. Backing up the time estimates used for Steps 1 – 3 (total of 6 months) yields a start date using this Framework must begin no later than January 2013 to align Step 4 with the current approach for the build of FY15.

The bottom line difference is that rather than beginning the budget build based upon what was done last year and trying to match up with projected revenue (current approach), the start of the budget build will have a fully fleshed out new organization, basis of estimates that are current, and a repository for interaction with the citizens; and with a means of interactively prioritizing to a greater degree than currently possible. Most of what is described here can be done in front of the public thereby providing more Transparency (better insight for them).

Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Questions

Reference: Staff Recommended Operating and Capital Budget, Fiscal Year 2013.

As a County Commissioner, citizens ask me “How do I know how many people are needed to operate the county government?” To answer this citizen question, I ask for documentation that responds to the following:

a. Please identify the Customer/Citizen Needs that yielded the Staffing identified within the Calvert County, Maryland FY2013 Staff Recommended Budget (APPENDIX – Staffing).

b. Please break out into discreet increments and prioritize that listing of Customer/Citizen Needs.

c. Please identify the activities, processes, functions, and services that respond to; and map/link these to the relevant Customer/Citizen Prioritized Needs.

d. Using these linkages, please identify the Basis of Estimate (BOE) used to determine the number and skill levels of the Staffing identified in the FY2013 Staff Recommended Budget (APPENDIX – Staffing).

As a County Commissioner, citizens ask me “How do I know how much material support and supplies are needed by the county government?” To answer this citizen question, I ask for documentation that responds to the following:

a. Please identify how the activities, processes, functions, and services that respond to; and are mapped/linked to the relevant Customer/Citizen Prioritized Needs (see above) are logically formed into the organizational structure, page 9, identified within the Calvert County, Maryland FY2013 Staff Recommended Budget (INTRODUCTION).

b. Please identify the Basis of Estimate (BOE) used to determine the material support and supplies needed for each organization in the organizational structure, page 9, identified in the FY2013 Staff Recommended Budget (INTRODUCTION).

As a County Commissioner, citizens ask me “How do I know how much money is needed by the county government?” To answer this citizen question, I ask for documentation that responds to the following:

a. Please identify how the Basis of Estimate (BOE) used to derive the responses to the above are used to derive the total recommended county government financial needs identified within the FY2013 Staff Recommended Budget as Expenditure Detail.

b. Using the linkages above, please identify the Basis of Estimate (BOE) used to determine the Programs and Projects identified under the County Government General and various Other Funds in the FY2013 Staff Recommended Budget.

c. Please identify and provide details on the trade-offs, priorities, and cost-benefit analysis that is performed to compare the Revenues and Expenditures identified within the FY2013 Staff Recommended Budget.

The following is provided as background. It describes the current level of insight to the budget build process of one commissioner.

BACKGROUND: Current Budget Build Process

Our current Budget Build Process does not provide the level of insight I need as a County Commissioner to answer the following questions:

a. How do I know how much money is needed by the county government?

b. How do I know how many people are needed to operate the county government?

c. How do I know how much material support and supplies are needed by the county government?

The following drawing (I am not an artist) shows a high level view of our current process.
Inputs from the various departments to the finance department are provided at the start of the process (July). Included are estimated maintenance and repair projects needs, salary reports to create salary projections, vehicle replacement needs, and requests related to Capital Improvement Programs (CIP).

It is possible for Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to inject itself into the process at this point considering their individual level of insight and scope of questions they may possess. Doing so, thus far is a challenge.

The first time the BOCC gets insight into the budget build is when the estimated revenue projections are presented (September) as part of BOCC strategy meetings.

From the time when the various inputs begin to arrive in the Finance Department, interaction between finance and the Departments occurs for the purpose of understanding the various submission details. This process continues interactively (July – December). During this time, the BOCC is consulted pertaining to needs of Outside Agencies (October) then highlighted with a work session focused upon the CIP.

In depth staff reviews in coordination with the various Departments begin in earnest (November – January). Funding formulas are finalized. Salary and benefit projections are generated.
The input from the departments is formed (February) into the budget numbers, and the BOCC is provided a work session pertaining to the 6 year CIP effort. The budget numbers are solidified for presentation to the public at an evening (March) Public Hearing (presented as the Staff Recommended Budget).

Budget work sessions begin (March) with the BOCC and continue until the budget numbers finalize (April).

The budget is then provided to the public (May) as the BOCC Budget. Any final changes based upon citizen input and commissioner discussions can occur. The budget is finalized and adopted (June) and takes affect (1 July) when the new budget builds begins anew.

Each instance of the BOCC interaction represents a specific part of the budget, not the entire end-to-end cycle. Of the entire budget, it appears the BOCC is provided insight into only 3 items before the budget is built (Estimated Revenue Projections, Outside Agency needs, and Capital Improvement Program), and once after it is built - Staff Recommended Budget (Click on Following Image to View).

Random Thoughts: Time No Longer Permits An Optimum Solution

A year ago with inklings that less revenue would be available for the Calvert County FY13 budget, common sense told me it was unrealistic to build the FY13 budget using the same process as previous years (back in the days when the revenue was increasing).

That Calvert County continued using the same process to build the FY13 budget that I disagreed with does not stop me from trying to find a reasonable solution to finalizing the FY13 budget. Time no longer permits an optimum solution.

Time is running out to begin the necessary background work to find an optimum build for FY-14, but not yet to change course targeting improvements for FY-15.

Previous ‘Salami Slicing’ approach (5% cut in FY-11, 5% cut in FY-12, and 3% cut in FY-13) is not Strategic Guidance, but rather a Symptom of taking the wrong approach to building a budget. Though easy for those ‘giving guidance’, the result is unbalanced.

Finding savings from common functions (Transportation, Information Technology, Inventory/Supplies, Procurement) between the school system (Board of Education) and the County Government was not explored, though it should. The quick negative response by the BOE to this earlier suggestion is proof that a bureaucratic reaction occurred instead of an objective analysis.

That the previous education “funding formula” was employed without an agreement for revision means use of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) – same amount of funding per pupil as previous year, is appropriate.

To even consider education funding increases above MOE requires a more detailed understanding of the school budget (much more detail than the school system provided). Time does not permit an optimum solution.

Trying to do prioritizations now is like a parent trying to select a ‘favorite child.” Prioritization should be done during the early stages of a budget build, not at crunch time. Time no longer permits an optimum solution.

Had an alternative process been used to build the FY-13 budget, various options would have been explored to include: Downsizing Plan, Privatization Plan, Out Sourcing Plan, Early Retirement Plan, and others. None of these tools are now available to assist.

It is way too early to even ponder tax rate increases. Too many savings can be found within the current budgeting for both the BOE and County Government.

Improving County Transparency

Purpose: To provide some conclusions and recommendations based upon a detailed look at one contract.

Background: A year ago, I reviewed several contracts looking for any inherent bias regarding local vendors related to our contract awards. I found no biases, but did reach a couple of conclusions:

a. For contracts where a form of evaluation criteria was used instead of “lowest responsive responsible bidder” approach, I recommended that solicitation document specifically state the evaluation criteria.

b. I recommended that the county code be amended to reflect this because this type of evaluation criteria is on par with the “lowest responsive responsible bidder” criteria contained within the county code.

c. We have yet to revise the county code though I still believe we should.

d. We have discussed looking at deriving a means to assist local vendors while still maintaining the best value for the tax payers. I once again recommend that we task the staff to actually explore possibilities.

This year, I selected a single contract to closely evaluate to assist gaining insight to the “front-end” where decisions are made before submitting an Invitation to Bid. The “front-end” involves management decisions producing either well thought-out plans (a game-plan, a management plan) and incorporated into the bidding, or plans that are ad hoc (or some combination of planning and ad hoc).

The county staff was very helpful in providing responses to several of my questions.

Though some of my fellow commissioners may already know the following, I offer some conclusions and suggestions going forward:

First: What I learned.

General Services plans include a repetitive painting schedule every five years. At the end of that 5-year cycle, the area is re-evaluated to determine any adjustments.

Supplementing this schedule are considerations for some areas that may require repainting due to their extended use. Staff indicated that “project planning is based on fiscal year not on contract periods”; but I don’t know what that means. General Services has a listing of planned areas intended for painting as well as potential areas identified that would be unplanned.

Vinyl wall covering is included in the solicitation requests although actual vinyl covering has not occurred since 2009. The reason to include it appears to be for ease of management, because if not included, contract modifications or a separate contract would be needed.

The bids that are submitted include a standard 10% mark-up that is used to compensate purchasing of consumables such as paint. Staff believes asking the vendors to bid on their proposed mark-up rate makes comparisons difficult.

Additional selection criteria such as timeliness to respond is generally not considered a criteria suitable for painting although other contracts (i.e., plumbing, electrical, or structural) would be appropriate to protect or secure a facility. Staff indicated that any entity of county government could “tag” off this contract, but how that is accomplished and managed; and why is unclear.

According to Maryland State Immigration laws, “Maryland does not impose E-Verify requirements on state or local agencies, nor does it require that private employers use E-Verify to confirm the legal employment status of new hires.” However, the U.S. Citizen Immigration Services indicates that “All employers in the United States are required to verify the work eligibility of everyone they hire.”

It’s technically possible to split one contract into separate contracts thereby reducing the overall cost to the county while still providing some work to a local vendor. With this piecemeal work; the staff identified potential scheduling conflicts and increased risks for delays in completing projects. Clearly, this is an area where “trade-offs” could determine costs versus schedule risks.

Staff indicated that a requirement exists for a vendor to be actively engaged in this field for a period of no less than five years under the same business license. For a painting contract, this seems rather severe and was the reason a local vendor was disqualified in 2009.

The staff does have the flexibility to negotiate with a vendor should that vendor be the only one submitting a bid. However, the current guidelines “lowest responsive responsible bidder” currently precludes, for example negotiating with the 3 – 5 lowest bidders.

Additional Recommendations (beyond those listed in the background):

a. Document the various plans such as the management plan pertaining to this contract, and make such plans available to the public. Doing so can display areas of best management practices. It can also allow for dialogue on any areas of improvement.

b. Consideration should still occur to piece-meal this type of contract using various contracting features such as employing optional tasks. Though more challenging to manage, doing this would permit additional contractual work for local vendors while still ensuring best value for the tax payers of Calvert County. It does not make sense to request bids for vinyl coverings if there are no plans for such work.

c. Consideration should be made to re-evaluate the minimum number of years a vendor needs to be operating under the same business license. The rationale for the minimum number of years should make common sense.

d. Make E-Verify now a requirement for all who contract with the county. Without using E-Verify, a vendor outside of Calvert County may be taking an unfair advantage. That vendor could submit lower estimated hourly rates by employing individuals who unfairly compete at much lower rates than others.

e. Using more selection criteria should actually help in determining the “lowest responsive responsible bidder”. Returning to vendor suggested mark-up rates should be reconsidered thereby reversing the previous decision to use a standard mark-up of 10%.

f. Negotiating with the 3 – 5 lowest bidders should be a tool that is employed. This will allow for vendors to rethink their approach and perhaps result in not only lower bids, but increase the potential for a local vendor to be awarded a contract.

Testimony to Counter PlanMaryland

Today, I provided testimony to the State of Maryland House Environmental Affairs Committee pertaining to bills that try to reign-in the over reach by the Maryland State Department of Planning with their "PlanMaryland" initiative. Following is the testimony:

In the 1770’s when Americans were uniting against a common enemy and becoming increasingly resentful of English interference, the forming resistance included the use of various symbols. One such symbol was the rattlesnake displayed as though it was going to strike, with words written underneath that said, "Don't Tread On Me!"

From the perspective of many local officials, for many months; a very similar intrusiveness was displayed by the Maryland Department of Planning in its creation of PlanMaryland.

Among the fundamental rights that citizens have is the right of property.

I speak in support of HB 35 Private Property Rights - Regulatory Infringement – Compensation as it would compensate property owners for actions taken by governments which negatively impact their property values.

This year, the Maryland Department of Planning caused rural counties on the eastern shore, western and central Maryland, as well as southern Maryland to compare notes and agree to oppose the arbitrary institution of PlanMaryland by the executive branch.

I speak in support of HB 36 Department of Planning - State Development Plan - Approval or Modification by the General Assembly as it would make the legislature responsible for approving or changing a statewide planning document known as PlanMaryland.

From the perspective of the local officials who live in rural areas such as Calvert County, the idea of having central planners who live in urban Baltimore, and work in Annapolis making land use decisions is completely abhorrent to the founding of this nation.

I speak in support of HB253 Department of Planning – Local and Regional Planning and Land Use 2 Powers – Prohibition on Restriction which would restrict the Maryland Department of Planning from adopting any regulation or taking any action that restricts the planning and land use powers of local governments or regional planning agencies.

The very idea of distant governmental authorities imposing their will upon citizens is sufficient to say “Don’t Tread On Me”